[Taxacom] morphology in molecular phylogeny

[Barry Roth]

It was in no way my intention to discredit molecular systematics, but rather to show an example in which reliance on one data set and -- let's call it "ellipsis" -- of another led to an absurd conclusion.  This kind of methodological pitfall is not unique to molecular systematics, nor is the temptation to ignore data selectively to support a favored paradigm (such as "morphostatic radiation").

"Michael A. Ivie" <mivie at montana.edu> wrote:    Bad science is bad science, and happens in every field. It is a 
reflection of the scientist, not the technique. You and other cite such 
examples for molecular workers. [...]
   
  Barry Roth wrote:

>I know of one situation where samples, all identified as the same species, were submitted to molecular systematists, who proceeded to report considerable diversity that "may well represent different species and even a different genus." They went on to declare the system a "morphostatic radiation" (defined elsewhere as "considerable, rapid speciation with low anatomical diversification" and "low levels of anatomical change"). But the morphological "stasis" was not documented (a single character mentioned as unreliable was one long known by taxonomists to have little diagnostic value in the group in question). I strongly suspected that the samples included specimens that, had they been reviewed by competent taxonomists, would have been recognized as different species based on morphology. I was later able to confirm this by examining a few of the specimens that survived the analysis. Fortunately, the "different genus" was removed from the array that was later reported by two
 of the original authors in an extended publication; but the "morphostatic radiation" remains a figment of ignored morphological data.


 
---------------------------------
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know. Ask your question on Yahoo! Answers.